Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Deposited in DRO:
26 February 2015
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for
personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
a link is made to the metadata record in DRO
the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom
Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971
http://dro.dur.ac.uk
2012-01-0171
Published 04/16/2012
Copyright 2012 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2012-01-0171
saepcmech.saejournals.org
INTRODUCTION
152
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
153
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
MODEL
The model used was a copy of the Ahmed body, (13). It
was originally made by Rover, many years ago, as a reference
body and was of wooden construction. The overall model
dimensions were: length 1.044m, width 0.389m, height
0.288m. The leading edge radius is 0.10m. The model was
modified by removing some internal structure at the rear to
facilitate a plain cavity, and the removeable upper body
sections were replaced with a fixed squareback shape with an
open base. A sliding back-plate for the cavity, which could be
positioned from outside the model, gave a maximum cavity
depth of 0.25m. The cavity walls were 0.012m thick and
longitudinal ventilation slots were cut into the walls. The
model and the slot arrangement are shown in Figure 1.
WIND TUNNEL
154
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
RESULTS
The initial tests of the modified Ahmed model were
conducted out of ground effect. The effect of a cavity depth
for a plain cavity, ie with no ventilation slots, is shown in
Figure 4. The incremental drag coefficient is measured
relative to the standard Ahmed body in squareback
configuration with no cavity. In this test the baseline drag
coefficient, CD, was 0.339, although it should be noted this
included a substantial tare drag correction for the elongated
support struts. As cavity depth increases, drag is initially
reduced rapidly, but then levels off with a minimum drag
coefficient at a cavity depth of 0.140m.
Adding the ventilation slots, the drag reduction due to
cavity depth is initially similar to the solid walled cavity, but
at a cavity depth of 0.060m the minimum drag is achieved
and at greater depths the drag increases rapidly. At a cavity
depth of 0.125 m the drag becomes equal to that of the basic
body. The vented cavity shows no improvement over the
plain cavity.
The central slot on the side and the two middle slots on
the top and bottom surfaces of the body were taped over to
investigate crudely the effect of ventilation area on the drag.
The minimum drag was the same as that obtained with the
full set of ventilation slots. The penalties arising from the
slots at cavity depths greater than the optimum could,
however, be mitigated by reducing the ventilation area. This
suggests that the slots are a source of drag.
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
drag determined for the plain and ventilated cavity. The effect
on drag is shown in Figure 5, relative to the squareback
configuration, (CD = 0.328). The plain cavity shows a
reduction in drag coefficient with cavity depth which is very
similar to the freestream case, and the drag minimum occurs
at a cavity depth of 0.130m. The maximum drag reduction
obtained with the ventilated cavity, however, was the same as
in the freestream condition, but the minimum drag coefficient
occurred with a cavity depth of 0.10m, which was deeper
than the freestream case. The drag rise as cavity depth
increased further was considerably slower than for the
freestream case.
A modification to the slot geometry was made in an
attempt to reduce the component of drag due to the slots
themselves, which Viwanath, (6) has called the device drag.
This was obtained with a ramp on the front edge of the slot,
leading into the cavity, and a radius on the rear edge of the
slot and is designated as a vented tapered slot. These changes
resulted in a small reduction to slot area, as shown in Figure
2(b). The effect on drag is plotted in Figure 5. No short
cavities were tested but the drag minimum occurs at a
reduced cavity depth of approximately 0.08m, and a steep
drag rise is seen for deeper cavities. Some sensitivity to
cavity depth is apparent as a drag bucket occurs around the
minimum drag condition. The drag benefits from the cavity in
this region are greater than for the vented cavity, but do not
exceed that for the plain cavity.
155
ANALYSIS
For the body with a plain cavity in freestream the
maximum reduction in drag coefficient, CD = 0.028,
relative to the squareback configuration, is obtained at a
cavity depth of 0.140m. This is a very similar improvement in
drag to that found by Morel (7) for a small scale
axisymmetric body, CD = 0.029. Non-dimensionalising the
optimum cavity depth, L, with respect to the equivalent
diameter, De, where the frontal area, A = De2/4, gives L/De
= 0.371. This compares with L/De = 0.36 for the body tested
by Morel, (7). Morel also showed that the base pressure
coefficient increased with cavity depth up to the minimum
drag condition and thereafter remained constant. Viswanath
156
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
157
and therefore,
158
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
159
CONCLUSIONS
160
Howell et al / SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. / Volume 5, Issue 1(May 2012)
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Jeff Howell
Senior Technical Specialist - Aerodynamics
Tata Motors European Technical Centre
University of Warwick
Coventry CV4 7AL
UK
jeff.howell@tatamotors.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research for this paper was funded through the Low
Carbon Vehicle Technology Project (LCVTP), a
collaborative research project between leading automotive
companies and research partners. The project partners
included Jaguar Land Rover, Tata Motors European
Technical Centre, Ricardo, MIRA Ltd., Zytek, WMG and
Coventry University. The project was funded by Advantage
West Midlands (AWM) and the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), and comprised 15 automotive
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
A
Av
CD
Frontal area
Ventilation area
Drag coefficient
CDB
Cavity backplate drag coefficient
CDD
Device drag coefficient
CDF
Forebody drag coefficient
CDN
Nose drag coefficient
CDS
Surface drag coefficient
De
Equivalent diameter
L
Cavity depth
M
Mach number
Re
Reynolds number
x
Distance downstream of trailing edge
z
Height above ground plane
z0
Ground clearance